Re: Energy Density of Coal Fired Power Plant

Bret Cahill wrote:
A 450 megawatt plant including coal and maintenance sheds and yard will
take up most of a square mile or 250 watts/m^2.

You can do better that with dish stirling.

Your subject line is about energy density, why are you talking in units
of
power/area?

To make sure you were awake reading these educational threads.

How much *energy* does that 450 MW plant generate in an average year,
versus
how much energy does the dish Stirling? I think that is the more
pertenent
question.

Once you factor in the height and width of the steam plant -- true
power density --, then dish Stirling _really_ looks better.

Excluding the coal pile, I'm skeptical.

Then the output is 0 watts/m^2.

Got some numbers?

You can get some numbers yourself.

Find a nearby coal fired plant -- they are the big ugly things they put
in undesirable places like the waterfront, industrial parks, airports,
etc. -- locate it on a map and measure the dimensions of the property.

Then call them up and ask engineering for the power output.

Stirling Energy Systems www.ses.com gets over 30% efficiency from solar
or over 300 kilowatts/m^2 and their shiny dishes look a WHOLE lot
better than a sooty plant.

Out in the desert where it's always sunny solar saves space over coal,
even when neglecting the strip mines in Montana.


Bret Cahill


Here's another data point: I found the Bruce Mansfield plant, Shippingport, PA, on Google maps. As near as I can tell from the satellite picture the plant (including the coal pile) covers an area of slightly less than 0.5 square mile. It has three units with a total capacity of 2,505 MW (835 MW/unit). Interestingly, the Beaver Valley Nuclear plant next to it covers just about half the area (0.25 square mile) for 65% the capacity (two units with a total of 1641 MW).

Bill Ghrist
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Energy Density of Coal Fired Power Plant
    ... better than a sooty plant. ... slightly less than 0.5 square mile. ... power plant. ... If they can't even get nukes to have a higher energy intensity than ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Energy Density of Coal Fired Power Plant
    ... > take up most of a square mile or 250 watts/m^2. ... how much energy does the dish Stirling? ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Energy Density of Coal Fired Power Plant
    ... take up most of a square mile or 250 watts/m^2. ... Your subject line is about energy density, why are you talking in units of power/area? ... How much *energy* does that 450 MW plant generate in an average year, versus how much energy does the dish Stirling? ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Energy Density of Coal Fired Power Plant
    ... > better than a sooty plant. ... slightly less than 0.5 square mile. ... I'm starting to think coal power is just another scam. ... Seems that the *energy* foot print for nuclear can run more than 20 times better than your Stirling Energy System. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: "The Only Thing They Learn" -- does anyone else find it irritating?
    ... still produce *only so much* energy per square mile of land, ... society would still be heavily constrained by energy output. ... there is no reason for solar energy to be Earth-based: ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
Loading